After all, it isn't like we were attacked by al-Qaeda on September 11.

Oh, wait -- we were attacked by al-Qaeda on September 11.

But to actually try to decapitate the organization by eliminating its leadership?

Utterly unacceptable!

Which is why this current controversy would be amusing -- if it did not indicate the fundamental lack of seriousness of the ruling party when it comes to national security and the defense of the United States.

Since 2001, the Central Intelligence Agency has developed plans to dispatch small teams overseas to kill senior Qaeda terrorists, according to current and former government officials.

The plans remained vague and were never carried out, the officials said, and Leon E. Panetta, the C.I.A. director, canceled the program last month.

Officials at the spy agency over the years ran into myriad logistical, legal and diplomatic obstacles. How could the role of the United States be masked? Should allies be informed and might they block the access of the C.I.A. teams to their targets? What if American officers or their foreign surrogates were caught in the midst of an operation? Would such activities violate international law or American restrictions on assassinations overseas?

Git that -- the official policy of the Obama regime is that we no longer kill or capture the leaders of the Islamists wherever we can find them. Call it a "safe haven for terrorists policy.

Of course, the Dems are outraged -- that they weren't kept abreast of the program, which was never fully implemented.

Mark Thiessen makes this observation over at National Review's Corner.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the program which Democrats were so angry about turns out to be an effort “to carry out a 2001 presidential authorization to capture or kill al Qaeda operatives.” Excuse me, but this is the Democrats’ idea of a scandal? Most Americans would not only expect, but demand, that the CIA do everything in its power to kill al-Qaeda operatives before they strike our country. Indeed, the Obama administration itself has reportedly escalated targeted killings of al-Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan using Predator and Reaper drones. These targeted killings are not assassinations — they are legitimate strikes against an enemy that has declared war on us and attacked us where we live.

That Congressional Democrats are outraged by this program speaks volumes about the state of their party on national security. The fact that the CIA was trying to kill al-Qaeda operatives should not be a point of outrage — it should be a point of pride.

Indeed, weren't the Democrats constantly arguing that we should be worrying about al-Qaeda and not Saddam? Now that it appears that the Bush Administration was actually trying to do something about al-Qaeda at the same time, Democrats are outraged.

And immediately leaked the details of the program to the press, proving that the decision to keep the details of the program under wraps was not merely prudent, but absolutely correct.

Oh, and by the way -- the plan was authorized and Congress was briefed in the early stages.

I'm particularly struck by this bit of silliness.

Kenneth Anderson, a law professor at American University who has studied targeted killings, said the United States first made the argument in 1989 that killing terrorists would not violate the assassination ban and would be a legal act of self-defense under international law.

Such killings would be premised on the condition that the authorities in the country where the terrorist was located were unable or unwilling to stop the terrorist, Mr. Anderson said.

In legal terms, he said, there is no real difference between killing a terrorist with a missile or with a handgun. “In political terms,” he continued, “there’s a real difference. The missile feels more like regular warfare, even if it’s carried out by the C.I.A.”

But any targeted killings make many specialists in international law uneasy. Hina Shamsi, an adviser to the Project on Extrajudicial Executions at New York University, said that any calculation about inserting an assassination team would have to consider the following: the violation of the sovereignty of the country where the killing occurred; the different legal status of the C.I.A. compared with the uniformed military; and whether the killing would be covered by the law of war.

I suppose targeting Hitler, or Goering, or Rommel would have been somehow unacceptable to these "specialists" in international law. Such things also indicate just how absurd much of the discussion of international law really is.

Jules Crittenden envisions these funny bits of testimony involving the questioning of Dick Cheney and Leon Panetta regarding the program.

Govt: So, Mr. Cheney. Why did you want to kill top al-Qaeda leaders, and why did you feel this was not something you could safely report to Congress?

XVP: Well, let’s see, where to start …

And

Govt: So, Mr. Panetta. Why did you decide to stop killing al-Qaeda leaders, and why did you feel it was important for the world to know that you would not be doing this?

CIA Chief: Well, let’s see, where to start …

But the key issue is this -- Democrats want to investigate and prosecute members of the previous administration for looking at means to attack our enemies during time of war. Shout it from the rooftops -- DEMOCRATS CARE MORE ABOUT OUR ENEMIES THAN OUR NATIONAL SECURITY!